|
Author
|
Topic: Beware, Pax Americana ahead- On Bush 'roadmap to peace' - A must read!
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
Reason for War?
White House Officials Say Privately the Sept. 11 Attacks Changed Everything
By John Cochran
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html
W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.
(My comment: Dick Cheney's New American Century defense policy http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm confirms this...)
Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.
If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here's the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.
Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.
The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.
Sending a Message
Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.
Officials deny that Bush was captured by the aggressive views of neo-conservatives. But Bush did agree with some of their thinking.
"We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first at us," conservative commentator Bill Kristol said on ABCNEWS' Nightline in March.
The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.
Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.
But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.
That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril.
Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was wrong.
"I don't think you should go to war to set examples or send messages," Woolsey said. Get the transcript of the Woolsey interview.
Sept. 11, 2001
But what if Sept. 11 had never happened? Would the United States have gone to war with Iraq? Administration officials and others say no, at least not now.
The Bush administration could probably have lived with the threat of Saddam and might have gone after him eventually if, for example, the Iraqi leader had become more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear program or in sponsoring terrorism.
But again, Sept. 11 changed all that.
Listen closely, officials said, to what Bush was really saying to the American people before the war.
"I hope they understand the lesson of September the 11th," Bush said on March 6. "The lesson is, is that we're vulnerable to attack, wherever it may occur, and we must take threats which gather overseas very seriously. We don't have to deal with them all militarily, but we have to deal with them."
Has the war done what the officials ABCNEWS talked to wanted?
It seems to have improved the behavior of the Syrians and maybe the Iranians, they said, although there is still concern that Iran will meddle in Iraq. And it may have even put some fear in the North Koreans, they added. Plus, they said it probably has helped the Middle East peace process. ![[eek]](eek.gif)
But will Iraq be the model that can persuade young Arabs there is more to life than hatred? Too early to know, they said.
Their point: We are deeply worried about the Shiites. It will be a tragedy if radical, anti-American elements gain control in post-Saddam Iraq.
One official said that in the end, history and the American people will judge the United States not by whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent.
History will judge the United States, the official said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America.
IP: Logged | 
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1050131007631
UK: Road map won't include Israeli changes
Lamia Lahoud Apr. 13, 2003
The Quartet will announce its road map for peace in the coming few days without changes demanded by Israel, provided the Palestinian Legislative Council endorses Prime Minister-designate Mahmoud Abbas and his cabinet, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw told Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat on Saturday.
Abbas has still not finalized his cabinet, but PA Minister for Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Shaath said the consultations are almost complete and predicted a new cabinet by Sunday or Monday.
"Implementing the road map plan and forming the new Palestinian cabinet were the major subjects that Mr. Straw discussed with President Arafat over the telephone," Arafat adviser and spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said.
Abu Rudeineh said Straw told Arafat that "all the international community is committed to help implementing the road map peace plan." The plan calls for an end to violence between Israel and the Palestinians, a resumption of peace negotiations, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state by 2005.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sent his bureau chief, Dov Weisglass, to Washington with five modifications to the plan. Israel demands that the Palestinians first quell terror and maintain quiet for a prolonged period of time before Israel starts to fulfill its obligations, which include a settlement freeze. Israel also demands that the US act as a monitoring force and not the Quartet, which includes, besides America, the UN, EU, and Russia.
Minister Saeb Erekat charged that Israel is trying to create obstacles to avert the implementation of the plan. Palestinian officials said they do not believe that Sharon is willing to agree to a settlement freeze, but PLC Speaker Ahmed Qurei is optimistic the international community would push for progress once Abbas and his cabinet are approved.
Abbas still faces resistance to appointing former Gaza Preventive Security Service chief Muhammad Dahlan as interior minister from both Arafat and the Fatah Central Committee, which wants the minister to come from its ranks, said Bassam Abu Sharif, a senior adviser to Arafat.
Arafat wants Fatah veteran Interior Minister Hani al-Hassan to remain in his post, but a PA source said Arafat is cooperating with Abbas in reaching a compromise.
One compromise proposal is to create a new ministry of internal security, which would be in fact an extension of the Preventive Security apparatus, and appoint Dahlan minister.
Meanwhile, a Palestinian official said the US victory over Iraq would force Syria to stop supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He predicted the two groups would try to reengage in a dialogue with Fatah.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
New American Century
Statement of Principles
June 3, 1997
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
Beware, Pax Americana ahead
By Michael Freund
Mar. 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1046754153689
In between statements last week putting Iraq on notice that they are about to get walloped, US President George W. Bush chose to put Israel on notice, too. In what were perhaps his most clear-cut, and frightening, remarks to date, the leader of the free world made plain last Wednesday that once Saddam is gone, his top priority will be to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Speaking at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Bush insisted that "Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle-Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state."
The president went on to describe his objective as being "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal."
Now, whatever one may think of Bush, there is no questioning the fact that he is a man of his word. Unlike many politicians, when he says something, he usually means it.
And that is what makes this latest speech so downright terrifying. For Bush went beyond the usual diplomatic jargon, using the phrase "personal commitment" to indicate that he is absolutely serious about bringing about the creation of Palestine.
In so doing, he transformed the issue from the lowly realm of the political to the highly charged one of the personal. That spells trouble, big trouble, for Israel.
It means that George Bush has now positioned himself, and his presidency, on a clear trajectory. He aims to knock Saddam out of the box in the next few weeks, after which his goal will be to fulfill Yasser Arafat's lifelong dream of establishing an independent Palestine.
Of course, Bush did stress that the new Palestinian state should be "truly democratic," but given its track record of violence and corruption over the past decade, chances are that the Palestinian entity-in-the-making will be little more than just another old-style dictatorship.
This cannot be allowed to happen. But unless Israel acts now, it most certainly will.
And here's why: The outcome of America's eminently justifiable invasion of Baghdad will be quick and decisive. Saddam will fall fast and he will fall hard, for the simple reason that no sane person in Iraq will be willing to fight to the death for a tyrant who has oppressed him and his family for the past three decades.
The victory in Iraq will likely usher in a period of unprecedented American dominance in world affairs, akin only to the Pax Romana inaugurated by Augustus Caesar, Rome's first emperor, in the year 27 BCE.
For nearly two centuries, Rome was the unrivalled global superpower, throwing around its weight at will, expanding its empire and enjoying a period of peace and prosperity.
America looks set to do the same once Saddam and his evil regime are removed from power.
The Arabs will be livid with rage, the Europeans will again feel slighted, and Russia will no doubt be irritated. The easiest way for Bush to patch up America's relations with the world, and bring down the price of oil, will be to impose a peace settlement on Israel and the Palestinians, bringing about an end to the century-old Middle East conflict.
And that is precisely what he aims to do: Pax Americana, or keeping the empire quiet.
Sounds unrealistic? Just remember those two little words Bush used last week: "personal commitment." They say it all.
It is therefore essential that Israel act now to rally its supporters across the United States and prevent such a scenario from unfolding.
REELECTED by an unprecedented margin, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has a clear mandate from the Israeli public, the overwhelming majority of whom do not subscribe to the Bush plan. A February 26 poll found that Israelis oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state by a whopping 61% to 31%.
Sharon is known to have close personal relations with Bush, and it is safe to assume that the president has already informed the prime minister about what he plans to do next. But even if he hasn't, that too was made clear in Bush's speech last Wednesday.
"The new government of Israel," said the president, "will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state."
That sounds more like marching orders than advice from a friendly ally. Sharon should therefore start by reaching out to Israelis, warning them of the dangers that lie ahead. He must unite the public behind him, filling us in on as much as he can without compromising his relationship with President Bush.
He needs to explain to the country that removal of the military threat from Iraq will pave the way for an unparalleled diplomatic assault on Israel, led by none other than the US State Department. It will seek to bring about the fulfillment of the failed Oslo Accords through the establishment of Palestine.
Simultaneously, Sharon should reach out to American Jewry, as well as to the masses of American Christians who are among the Jewish state's most fervent supporters. Groups such as Esther Levens National Unity Coalition for Israel, and Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein's Stand For Israel have the ability to bring together millions of American Christians on Israel's behalf.
These people form the backbone of Bush's support in the Republican party, and they must be mobilized at once to work against the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Sharon should therefore address American Christian supporters of Israel directly, tapping into their political savvy and biblical commitment to help save the Jewish state from the fate that awaits it after the war in Iraq is complete.
Establishing a Palestinian state, it must be made clear, will endanger Israel and undermine American interests in the region. It will reward decades of Arab intransigence as well as Palestinian terror, and weaken the only democracy in the Middle East.
Now is the time for Israel to undertake such a campaign, before the impending post-war diplomatic pressure becomes too heavy to resist.
It may just be a matter of weeks or months before the Pax Americana arrives, seeking to force Israel to make dangerous concessions.
If Israel fails to act now, it may just wake up one morning to find an independent "Palestine" at its doorstep. And that is a risk we simply cannot afford to take.
The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
